MJK's Body Identification?

[packers stem]

Exactly.

But it is really is interesting that some posters must resort to being condescending and belittling when, at the end of the day:

A. None of this matters a whit and will change nothing and

B. Each poster here will have his/her own opinion about what really happened and no one will ever know whether he/she is right or not.

But ain't human nature fun to watch?

Ah but it matters greatly curious....
You see, if it can be accepted that someone other than Mary Kelly was killed it really does blow the whole idea of a random lone serial killer as we understand them today so far out of the water it'll hit the moon with ice on it 😂
The odds against someone being warned,saved,switched or whatever from a soon to appear serial killer not to mention the idea that the last two victims were both using the name or though to be Mary Kelly but neither one actually was would be a little too much to pass off. I can understand why John and others would be rattled

[Michael W Richards]

Hi curious .She would recognise her,it really is that simple
As would Lewis who would almost certainly have used the quiet courtyard on a regular basis to play the illegal game of pitch and toss .
I'm sure he saw Kelly leave and enter her room regularly
The dismissal of this evidence is a nonsense really

It would appear that the only witnesses the Inquest didnt caution as to their stories either saw Mary in life before 1:30am, or in death, after 11:00am.

The fact that Maxwell was essentially told her story didnt fit with any of the evidence given should tell you something.

[packers stem]

It would appear that the only witnesses the Inquest didnt caution as to their stories either saw Mary in life before 1:30am, or in death, after 11:00am.

The fact that Maxwell was essentially told her story didnt fit with any of the evidence given should tell you something.

Hi Michael
You're correct that Maxwell was the only one called who's evidence didn't fit an overnight murder.
Not her fault or Maurice lewis' fault that neither himself nor the unidentified witness who's name apparently was known according to the times weren't called. Travesty really

[Elamarna]

Packers

following on from the other thread, and not wanting to stray to far.

lets for one moment for the sack of argument accept she was alive about 10.

Had she seen the body in #13? I assume she must have!

She now wanted to disappear right?

If so why hang around virtually next to the murder site? Was there not a chance she would be identified by more people thus blowing her death out of the water?

If she didn't want to disappear why not say, hi I am alive, its not me.

Steve

[Rosella]

I agree. If you want to disappear, presumably because you're frightened of something, you'd surely be high tailing it out of town or at least to the other side of London, not casually having a drink or two and vomiting it up, before having a conversation about how sick you feel with a neighbour in Dorset St. Especially with a neighbour who knows you.

[Elamarna]

I agree. If you want to disappear, presumably because you're frightened of something, you'd surely be high tailing it out of town or at least to the other side of London, not casually having a drink or two and vomiting it up, before having a conversation about how sick you feel with a neighbour in Dorset St. Especially with a neighbour who knows you.

Hi Rosella

its always possible, if we go down this road purely for debate, that the vomiting was not due to drink, but the result of having just seen the sight in #13.
but yes even if you don't run across town at once, maybe waiting for someone, you hide, and surely this is one case of "hiding in plain sight" that would not work.

Steve

[packers stem]

Packers

following on from the other thread, and not wanting to stray to far.

lets for one moment for the sack of argument accept she was alive about 10.

Had she seen the body in #13? I assume she must have!

She now wanted to disappear right?

If so why hang around virtually next to the murder site? Was there not a chance she would be identified by more people thus blowing her death out of the water?

If she didn't want to disappear why not say, hi I am alive, its not me.

Steve

Hi Steve
I don't see a 10am disappearance as unusual given the circumstances that no body had been discovered.
She would have had no reason to believe that Bowyer or anyone else would have gone noseying through her curtains. The door was locked, quite possibly,she'd spoken to Barnett so he wouldn't be calling round.
It's only Bowyers early discovery that causes issues.
Had the discovery not been made for another 24 hours no one on this site would be calling Maxwell or Lewis unreliable witnesses we would almost certainly be saying it was a certain fact that Kelly had been seen by them and discussing a murder having taken place on the evening of the 9th.
Eddowes murdered using the name Mary Kelly
Another body in her room supposed to be her
....and she is supposed to announce to the world "missed me again"??

[Rosella]

Eddowes also used the name Conway on several occasions. She didn't always stick with Kelly.

Whoever the victim was in that room at Millers Court whether MJK or someone else, according to Dr Bond rigor mortis had started to set in at 2pm when he began the postmortem on the victim. According to him it became more pronounced during the PM. He stated 'From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death...' If Bond didn't know then we are back in the realm of possibilities for TOD. If she died at about 4am that's ten hours before rigor began.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
I don't see a 10am disappearance as unusual given the circumstances that no body had been discovered.
She would have had no reason to believe that Bowyer or anyone else would have gone noseying through her curtains. The door was locked, quite possibly,she'd spoken to Barnett so he wouldn't be calling round.
It's only Bowyers early discovery that causes issues.
Had the discovery not been made for another 24 hours no one on this site would be calling Maxwell or Lewis unreliable witnesses we would almost certainly be saying it was a certain fact that Kelly had been seen by them and discussing a murder having taken place on the evening of the 9th.
Eddowes murdered using the name Mary Kelly
Another body in her room supposed to be her
....and she is supposed to announce to the world "missed me again"??

Sorry I think you are misunderstanding, I am asking why would she go to the pub, if she wanted to disappear?
if she is indeed seen it would suggest that she was not the victim.

However if you are saying that you see no problem with being in the pub at 10am for she was not expecting the body to be found yet, i have to question that viewpoint.
If the body was found later later, lets us use your suggestion of 24hrs,decomposition would have set it, Rigor would be decreasing and it would be clear she died at least 24 hrs before.
There would be far less confusion over TOD if the body was found later.
Bowyers early discover does not cause issues at all in that respect.

Packers, I really don't see that you have given a plausible answer to the points I raised,
Indeed You didn't reply to if she had seen the body in your opinion?
Additionally did she know who it was?

Given the above I therefore remain of the opinion that the woman known as MJK was the victim and was killed before 8am.

cheers

Steve

[packers stem]

Hi Rosella

Eddowes also used the name Conway on several occasions. She didn't always stick with Kelly.

Eddowes was using the name Mary Kelly on the day she died, it's the only day of relevance. Any other names she may have used have no bearing on that day.

Whoever the victim was in that room at Millers Court whether MJK or someone else, according to Dr Bond rigor mortis had started to set in at 2pm when he began the postmortem on the victim. According to him it became more pronounced during the PM. He stated 'From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death...' If Bond didn't know then we are back in the realm of possibilities for TOD. If she died at about 4am that's ten hours before rigor began.

I agree around about 4 is probably a good estimate

[Elamarna]

Hi Rosella


I agree around about 4 is probably a good estimate

Packers Stem, at last I find something on this issue we can broadly agree on

Respectful disagreement and debate, is I think health and can lead to greater degree study and research, maybe in the end leading to a resolution.
Its when there is no respect that things go awry.
Fortunately we are both reasonable and respectful, maybe one day some thing will come to light so that we can agree on the issue of the ID of MJK.

All the best, and greatest respect

steve

[packers stem]

Hi Steve

Sorry I think you are misunderstanding, I am asking why would she go to the pub, if she wanted to disappear?

Why wouldn't she was pretty much the answer Steve until she was ready to leave.There are bound to be questions that are impossible to answer without being a fly on the wall and we can but hazard a guess.Maybe arrangements,maybe a meeting with someone...

if she is indeed seen it would suggest that she was not the victim.

Agreed

If the body was found later later, lets us use your suggestion of 24hrs,decomposition would have set it, Rigor would be decreasing and it would be clear she died at least 24 hrs before.
There would be far less confusion over TOD if the body was found later.

Why would there be far less confusion Steve?
Seems contradictory.if we remove the plus and minus 24 hours from your statement were back to where we started so how could there possibly be far less confusion

Sometimes far too much faith placed in the Victorian physicians who in most cases contradict each other.
I suspect the scope for TOD would have widened to at least the afternoon if not evening.

Packers, I really don't see that you have given a plausible answer to the points I raised,
Indeed You didn't reply to if she had seen the body in your opinion?
Additionally did she know who it was?

Seen the body? Of course, she was coming and going from the room

Did she know who it was? Probable but clearly not provable

[packers stem]

Packers Stem, at last I find something on this issue we can broadly agree on

Respectful disagreement and debate, is I think health and can lead to greater degree study and research, maybe in the end leading to a resolution.
Its when there is no respect that things go awry.
Fortunately we are both reasonable and respectful, maybe one day some thing will come to light so that we can agree on the issue of the ID of MJK.

All the best, and greatest respect

steve

Hi Steve
I agree wholeheartedly
We're never all going to agree on the evidence
It's what makes it interesting, we see different possibilities

All the best

[Pierre]

Hi Rosella

its always possible, if we go down this road purely for debate, that the vomiting was not due to drink, but the result of having just seen the sight in #13.
but yes even if you don't run across town at once, maybe waiting for someone, you hide, and surely this is one case of "hiding in plain sight" that would not work.

Steve

Hi,

A lot of speculations has been going on based on the statements of both Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell. And yet, both the Lewis-sources and the Maxwell sources must be disregarded as valid sources.

In the case of the Lewis-sources, I have shown you why. I will now show you why the same applies for the Maxwell-sources.

So back to the original papers from 1888.

Letīs analyse the first and second Maxwell-source that was produced and still exists. In these sources, I will analyse the elements I find significant.

The first is the source from the police investigation 9 November. The source has Caroline Maxwell saying that

1. She was on speaking terms with Mary Jane although
2. She had not seen Mary Jane for 3 weeks until Friday morning 9th inst.
3. She saw her vomit in the road

The second is the source from the inquest. The source has Caroline Maxwell saying that

1. She knew Mary Jane but never spoke with her except twice
2. Shen saw the drink Mary Jane had consumed, it was in the road,
3. She saw that Mary Jane ”motioned with her head”

One set of problems with the sources are connected to the internal source criticism.

Another set of problems with these sources are connected to the external source criticism.

We start with the first.

The first internal problem is the tendency of the sources. The tendency is a bias that is created in an historical source due to motive(s) of the speaking person.

Tendencies must be eliminated if a source should be considered serious and if it should be used for establishing facts.

So what are the tendencies in the Maxwell-sources?

1. The first tendency has to do with the sources giving an impression of closeness and distance at the wrong points in time.

The witness wants to give the police the impression she was rather close to the victim, since she was on speaking terms with her.

At the same time (!) she wants to distance herself from the victim, stating that she had not seen her for 3 weeks.

This is one dimension of the tendency of the first source. The same tendency is active in the second source, giving that she knew Mary Jane and therefore was close to her

At the same time she ”never” (!) spoke to her, except twice. Here again is the tendency of distance.

2. The second tendency is to visualize things and thereby convince the police the witness saw these things.

The witness wants the police to believe that she saw the victim, by giving details about the victimīs vomit in the road.

She wants the police to believe that she saw the victim well and gives a detail about ”her head”.

This tendency is connected to the tendency of closeness and distance.

But: The witness could not have seen the vomit in the road, since the contents of the stomach were visible exclusively at the murder site. Therefore, there is a distance between the real contents of the stomach and the vomit in the narrative of the witness.

The same applies for seeing ”her head”. Her head was exclusively to be seen in the bed at the murder site. It was not to be seen outside on the street.

But at the same time, the statements of ”vomit” and ”head” are connected to closeness. The witness wants the police to believe that she was close to the victim, since she wants them to believe that she saw the vomit and her head, although there was an actual distance.

Now, merely reading (instead of analysing) these statements of the witness, they sound strange and that is why people wonder about them.

But the real problem is that the witness is giving redundant information, that is, the information about the vomit and the head. She wouldnīt have had to mention those elements at all.

But still she goes into meaningless and redundant details – and that is a certain sign of a tendency.

Conclusion: Since the Maxwell-sources have such strong tendencies, the conclusion must be that they can NOT be used for establishing the TOD (time of death) of the victim Mary Jane Kelly.


The second type of source criticism we must perform is the external source criticism.

Here, the main question is: What are the functions of these sources?

From the point of view of the police and the coroner (the producers of the sources), the function of the sources are to give statements to the police and to the court about a victim who has been murdered and mutilated.

From the point of view of the witness, on the other hand, that function is not a relevant function, since the statements have strong tendencies.

So the external and internal source criticism show connections between the tendencies and the function of the sources.

So what is the function of the statements, from the point of view of the witness?

Since the statements have strong tendencies, the best answer is that the statements are made in the interest of the witness. This often happens in historical sources. So what would the interest of the witness be?

1) Would it be of any interest for the witness to give such tendencious statements if it was only a matter of misremembering?

No, since the witness was questioned already on the 9th and could not have misremembered such an important sighting from the very same day.

2) Would it be of any interest for the witness to give such tendencious statements if it was only a matter of attention seeking?

No, since it would have been a negative attention seeking, which led to the witness being strongly questioned by the court. It was an inquest where the witness was not only questioned – but called into question.

My conclusion is that the Maxwell-sources are of very low validity since they have strong tendencies. They are not good sources on which to build a theory of Mary Jane Kelly being another woman (as an example).

What the explanations for the tendencies are, is something completely different.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre,

Can I ask why you have taken a post of mine, quoted it and then copied your thread "The Maxwell-sources: End of misinterpretation" on to it as if it were a completely new post.
The only differences are that the formatting has changed, that is bold print and standard print are altered.

You may not be aware, if you are going to do this, it is the normal convention to say it is a repost.

The post itself is interesting, and I had already seen it.

regards

steve